Are PPC's suppressing threads when they lose in court?

HAR

Im a little confused,can anybody 1oo% confirm wether this case number is real and who won?

TrickyWicky

esmerobbo wrote: »

That would be a step up for him! Mind you he does like a bit of cheating!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4755270.stm


Mike Perkins admits that he considered paying £5,000 to someone who responded to an advert his friend placed on the internet asking to see the entry paper to the exam his daughter Laura was due to sit.

Lol, interesting read.

timwilson

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

Any company is bigger than Perkys. You can't have a thriving business and spend all week trolling around consumer forums proving what a total !!!! you are.

Here are the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
Requires excessive admiration
Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Check, check and check again.

you really are a bitter individual arent you, I suspect the above list of disorders is more of what you suffer with but if it makes you feel better to be so bitter then as this is not the real world, just internet twoddle then feel free to take out your frustrations on me.

I suspect if I was ever to meet you then you would be as quiet as a doormouse, its easy to play the big man when no one knows who you are but thats the beauty of the internet I suppose.

timwilson

esmerobbo wrote: »

That would be a step up for him! Mind you he does like a bit of cheating!


Mike Perkins admits that he considered paying £5,000 to someone who responded to an advert his friend placed on the internet asking to see the entry paper to the exam his daughter Laura was due to sit.

Again, without letting the facts get in the way ....

"Mike Perkins admits that he considered " - I see the word considered, not "Mike perkins read the paper" ...

I also read "an advert his friend placed on the internet ", something to which the BBC confirmed with the person that they did for their own daughter .. so I fail to see how Mike Perkins did anything here which constitutes cheating.

If it said "Mike Perkins read the paper" or "Mike Perkins placed an advert to see the paper" you may have a point but it doesnt so its a bit of a non story and taken out of the context what the BBC programme was about.

I am obviously missing something here, but still you people obviously are reading into something that didnt happen and it makes you feel good (for whatever reason)

ripped_off_driver

timwilson wrote: »

you really are a bitter individual arent you, I suspect the above list of disorders is more of what you suffer with but if it makes you feel better to be so bitter then as this is not the real world, just internet twoddle then feel free to take out your frustrations on me.

I suspect if I was ever to meet you then you would be as quiet as a doormouse, its easy to play the big man when no one knows who you are but thats the beauty of the internet I suppose.

Oh dear. looks like I hit a nerve there. Calm down old chap. You know that high blood pressure can lead to problems. take a chill pill. After all you were the one to come on here lying about a case and trying to take the p1ss.

If you ever were to meet me you would do what exactly? Fall on top of me big daddy style? Maybe I should be worried after all. That kind of blubber could sure do some damage.

TrickyWicky

timwilson wrote: »

I am obviously missing something here, but still you people obviously are reading into something that didnt happen and it makes you feel good (for whatever reason)

Erm what have I said? - Apart from "Lol interesting read" ?

bargepole

Well, you have to hand it to Perky.

In spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he still finds time to come on here and try to convince us that his faux PCNs are contractually binding, and even gets the odd County Court Judge to agree with him.

He even seems to believe that Schedule 4, if it ever gets enacted, will make life easier for PPCs, but the govt. and BPA have turned that into such a contradictory mish mash that most PPCs will be wishing it never happened.

If people who lost their cases would only appeal to a higher court, they would almost certainly get these judgments overturned, more senior Judges who are properly up to speed on contract and penalty legislation won't generally uphold these claims.

When Perky's little firm got the defence statement from "timwilson", their eyes must have lit up - another ignoramus trying to defend on the basis that the signage was inadequate. An easy win for the PPC, all they have to do is show that a reasonable person would have read the signs. All of which sidesteps the real issue, which is that the stuff written on the signs is complete bollox, whether the letters are one inch or two feet high.

Anyway the Pieman has at least tried to argue his case, which is more than you can say for the ignorant Peter Hasbeen, or the odious Renshaw-Smith when they've popped in here for a troll.

ripped_off_driver

timwilson wrote: »

Again, without letting the facts get in the way ....

"Mike Perkins admits that he considered " - I see the word considered, not "Mike perkins read the paper" ...

I also read "an advert his friend placed on the internet ", something to which the BBC confirmed with the person that they did for their own daughter .. so I fail to see how Mike Perkins did anything here which constitutes cheating.

If it said "Mike Perkins read the paper" or "Mike Perkins placed an advert to see the paper" you may have a point but it doesnt so its a bit of a non story and taken out of the context what the BBC programme was about.

I am obviously missing something here, but still you people obviously are reading into something that didnt happen and it makes you feel good (for whatever reason)

But you (Perky) said in the very same article:

"Someone did reply and say they had the paper, but the school got in touch too and told us they were aware of it and weren't happy."

"As it was, we never contacted the person who said they had the exam. You wouldn't have known if they were genuine or not anyway, and it was too risky."

These are your own words. It seems that you only did not go ahead because the school contacted you and you didn't want to get caught.

Decent people would never dream of cheating in this way. But from what we know of you it does tend to go with the territory.

bromsgrovebarry

This case reminds me of one of Perkys few 'victories' namely the Telford one. I think that Perky lies in wait for people whose only defence is inadequate signage.

esmerobbo

timwilson wrote: »

Again, without letting the facts get in the way ....

"Mike Perkins admits that he considered " - I see the word considered, not "Mike perkins read the paper" ...

I also read "an advert his friend placed on the internet ", something to which the BBC confirmed with the person that they did for their own daughter .. so I fail to see how Mike Perkins did anything here which constitutes cheating.

If it said "Mike Perkins read the paper" or "Mike Perkins placed an advert to see the paper" you may have a point but it doesnt so its a bit of a non story and taken out of the context what the BBC programme was about.

I am obviously missing something here, but still you people obviously are reading into something that didnt happen and it makes you feel good (for whatever reason)

Just to quote your statement from the article!! The bit you never quoted above!


"But, if someone could guarantee to me that they could show me the paper, and Laura would pass, would I pay to see it? Probably. Yes."


Must stop feeding the troll!